Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Strontium Dog]

The 5 richest people in the world own more than the poorest 3.5 billion or so (many of whom are starving) combined. If anyone thinks this is desirable state of affairs, they are a sociopath.

You own more than the poorest few hundred thousand combined. So I guess you'll be giving all your stuff away, then, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite.

[pErvinalia]

Non-sequitur. I said nothing about redistribution.

And even if I did, which I didn't, your reply becomes a false dichotomy fallacy. No one that I know of advocates for taking "all [their] stuff" from someone and giving it to others.

Two logical fallacies in one. Well done!

[JimC]

Again, inequality is all a matter of degree - huge in 3rd world countries, big in the US and smaller in most European social democracies. It would be virtually impossible to ensure everyone in a given society had the same wealth - there will always be some inequality of wealth and possession. However, societies with extreme degrees of inequality have potentially dangerous futures ahead of them. There are a variety of measures which could make equality of opportunity more likely than it is now, mainly by ensuring that wealth cannot be the main way of ensuring that you and your offspring are as healthy and well-educated as possible. In addition, I would love to see more shareholder revolts against the obscene salaries and bonuses given to CEOs - after all, that reduces their own potential dividends...

[Hermit]

The 5 richest people in the world own more than the poorest 3.5 billion or so (many of whom are starving) combined. If anyone thinks this is desirable state of affairs, they are a sociopath.

You own more than the poorest few hundred thousand combined. So I guess you'll be giving all your stuff away, then, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite.

Cheap shot. And it missed. You realise you're addressing someone who lives in a trailer, don't you? Luxurious existence to the hundreds of thousands who have a problem finding enough weeds to fill their stomachs or have no choice but to sell their children into slavery, to be sure, but get real - if you buy a boat like this for over $20 million



and still have $61 billion left over, it's clearly a case of "after you, mister Ellison."

It's for this reason that I have more respect for a pensioner who puts a couple of dollars into the poor box than, say Bill Gates, who stuck $28 billion into a foundation he allegedly does not control, leaving himself a paltry $90 billion.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

It's for this reason that I have more respect for a pensioner who puts a couple of dollars into the poor box than, say Bill Gates, who stuck $28 billion into a foundation he allegedly does not control, leaving himself a paltry $90 billion.

Very biblical of you, Hermit; the parable of the widow's mite, no less...

I understand the emotion behind the statement, but nevertheless, the foundation (as I understand) is doing a lot of practical, useful and pragmatically sound things to relieve poverty and disease in the third world, in more sensible ways than most of the god-botherer charities. And the comparison that should be drawn is between Gates and the other billionaires who do sweet fuck all...

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, as far as rich bastards go Gates is less bad by a way than most others.

[Hermit]

I hope you realise that functionally speaking the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is more about generating sales and profit for Microsoft than helping the needy. Much of it consists of, say, donating a few million dollars worth of computers to needy school children of some benighted nation on condition that it enters into a long-term contract to run its entire government administration on a Microsoft designed, built, maintained, periodically upgraded, and expanded network. Similar scam applies to funding research to find a cure for some disease or other.

As for the pensioner kicking a couple of money into the poor box, yes, I'd rather the money was directed in a more useful direction, but in the context I stole that example for it's the motivation (charity) that matters, and the real sacrifice the pensioner makes in doing so. If you prefer, I could have said the pensioner contributed two bucks to the orphaned communist cats fund.

[Hermit]

Yeah, as far as rich bastards go Gates is less bad by a way than most others.

Oh , yes of course, and especially so when compared to the Martin Shkreli types. Coincidentally, jurors in the Martin Shkreli securities fraud trial could begin considering his fate late next week.

[pErvinalia]

I didn't realise that about the Gates foundation.

[Scot Dutchy]

The problem is not with people like Gates but the societies that allowed them to exist. Such inequality should be tackled by the tax system and education. This right in capitalism that people think they have to become super rich should be removed. Good company practice should also be encouraged. Workers are there not to exploited but there work for a decent wage in good conditions. I think our system of workers councils is very good for workers involvement. It is also used in Germany btw. Health and education should be above politics. An equal system throughout society strictly controlled and kept to the highest level possible. Many Northern European countries do have this in place the results of which appear in any analysis that is made. You must get the basics right which is not happening in many countries. America is a prime example along with the UK.

[mistermack]

I have more respect for a pensioner who puts a couple of dollars into the poor box than, say Bill Gates, who stuck $28 billion into a foundation he allegedly does not control, leaving himself a paltry $90 billion.

I don't. The pensioner is a fucking idiot, if he's skint. And if he's wealthy, then a couple of dollars is fuck-all to him.
Either way, Gates is doing what very few pensioners would do, if they had his money.
Personally, if I was Gates, and felt the urge to do good, I would spend the lot on free birth-control in the poorest areas. I understand that he does a bit of that, and if he does, he gets some respect from me.

[Scot Dutchy]

I have more respect for a pensioner who puts a couple of dollars into the poor box than, say Bill Gates, who stuck $28 billion into a foundation he allegedly does not control, leaving himself a paltry $90 billion.

I don't. The pensioner is a fucking idiot, if he's skint. And if he's wealthy, then a couple of dollars is fuck-all to him.
Either way, Gates is doing what very few pensioners would do, if they had his money.
Personally, if I was Gates, and felt the urge to do good, I would spend the lot on free birth-control in the poorest areas. I understand that he does a bit of that, and if he does, he gets some respect from me.

Simple. No money in it for him. What he does do is a paint job.

[Forty Two]

The 5 richest people in the world own more than the poorest 3.5 billion or so (many of whom are starving) combined. If anyone thinks this is desirable state of affairs, they are a sociopath.

You own more than the poorest few hundred thousand combined. So I guess you'll be giving all your stuff away, then, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite.

Also, socialism does not alleviate the problem of wealth distribution. By the looks of socialist countries, it exacerbates it.

[Forty Two]

someone who lives in a trailer,

Looxury!

It's for this reason that I have more respect for a pensioner who puts a couple of dollars into the poor box than, say Bill Gates, who stuck $28 billion into a foundation he allegedly does not control, leaving himself a paltry $90 billion.

Certainly, someone who is himself in need who gives to other people in need is deserving of a huge level of respect. But, I don't think that means there is something bad about someone who built Microsoft into just about the biggest company in the world, which benefited many millions, if not billions, of people on the planet. Sure, he got paid for it, but there is nothing problematic about doing good and being paid for it.

[rainbow]

The 5 richest people in the world own more than the poorest 3.5 billion or so (many of whom are starving) combined. If anyone thinks this is desirable state of affairs, they are a sociopath.

You own more than the poorest few hundred thousand combined. So I guess you'll be giving all your stuff away, then, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite.

Also, socialism does not alleviate the problem of wealth distribution. By the looks of socialist countries, it exacerbates it.

...but only if you ignore the data.